Can we just stop with the block size panic crap?

[brg444]

lets say each person made 1 remittance a week
knowing that there are 144 blocks a day and a potential of 4000tx a block (with luck)
4000x144x7= 4 million users making 1 transaction a week.

which is not adequate for the 192million migrant workers (quoted by world bank), thats just over 2%

I guess most of them do not have enough skill to "go to exchanges -> purchase some bitcoin -> send them to another exchange in another country -> sell them for local currency". I have tried to teach one friend to transfer the fund from another country (she is a 37 years old professor) when she visited me, she said there is so much hassle and she will never do it again, she does not care about the expensive bank fee, she just want fast and easy process of use her credit card

So even bitcoin were used in remittance, it will be some large companies utilizing bitcoin and the end user would only notice the speed and fee advantage. However, if it is operated by large companies, then they are operating more or less like Western Union, have frequent clearing and settlement and do not need blockchai

See Abra & Align Commerce

I've been registered at Abra for a long time but it seems there is no progress

AFAIK they're soft-launching in targeted areas for now (Philippines being one of them)

As for remittances it does need a tech-savy person and one someone somewhat familiar with Bitcoin to really leverage the benefits of it.

Personally I use Bitcoin regularly to send money abroad using rebit.ph and it's saved me a great deal of money and hassle.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You are arguing with a paid troll (NotLambChop)

Oh dear, your nervous tic is back....

[johnyj]

i think there can be a fair balance of bitcoin and fiat. without one or the other fighting.. but thats just me

Currently bitcoin perfectly cover the biggest shortcoming of fiat money that it can not be used as a long term saving medium, due to all the inflative monetary policy from central banks

The inflative monetary policy will never change because that's how central banks drive the economy. If they stopped printing money then the whole economy will drop into recession

I think bitcoin should focus on those things that fiat money CAN NOT do, not those things fiat money already do

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

i think there can be a fair balance of bitcoin and fiat. without one or the other fighting.. but thats just me

Currently bitcoin perfectly cover the biggest shortcoming of fiat money that it can not be used as a long term saving medium, due to all the inflative monetary policy from central banks

The inflative monetary policy will never change because that's how central banks drive the economy. If they stopped printing money then the whole economy will drop into recession

I think bitcoin should focus on those things that fiat money CAN NOT do, not those things fiat money already do

Yep, the biggest selling point for Bitcoin is the fact that i's a true alternative to the imposed-by-the-state economy, if we lose node centralization we lose this special feature of being detached from the same old powers.

[arcticlava]

So even with coffee out of the equation, the block size problem remains on the table.

So let's discuss the block size problem.

Currently the Bitcoin network can only support around 7 TPS (transactions per second) but you need to realise for a start that it is not "actually 7 txs per second" as a new block only gets created on average every 10 minutes (so a merchant can't expect a payment confirmation in seconds).

So no matter how much bigger you make the blocks you don't solve the 10 minutes problem (so the X txs per second are actually not *real* txs per second and never will be).

The very design of Bitcoin stops it from being like VISA and this is the point that I have been trying to make.

@CIYAM what is your opinion of the merits of side chains to solve the 10 minutes problem, and are side chains fundamentally different from the CIYAM project?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

, if we lose node centralization we lose this special feature of being detached from the same old powers.

Im assuming you meant to say node DE-centralization.

[franky1]

i think there can be a fair balance of bitcoin and fiat. without one or the other fighting.. but thats just me

Currently bitcoin perfectly cover the biggest shortcoming of fiat money that it can not be used as a long term saving medium, due to all the inflative monetary policy from central banks

The inflative monetary policy will never change because that's how central banks drive the economy. If they stopped printing money then the whole economy will drop into recession

I think bitcoin should focus on those things that fiat money CAN NOT do, not those things fiat money already do

the deflationary nature is about the rarity...

imagine oyster shells.. but only 50 are grown every 10 minutes, then after 4 years 25, and so on. and it was calculated that there would be just 21 oyster shells in the world..

you would see its rarity.. but as you travel from town to town seeing new people. they would look at you and wonder why you are carrying oyster shells with you. they wont sell you a loaf of bread because they only accept IOU parchments signed by the local king, who holds a cetain amount of gold loot that represents the total value of the parchments he signed.
no way in hell would people think a seashell is valuable..

the reason i say that is.. no matter how much you understand or value it.. if other people cannot buy bread with it. or they know trying to find another new person in a distant land is reluctant to accept it for long distance remittance.. then it has limited usage, and those holding it will find less and less things to use it on.. eventually becoming paperweights

we need to expand usefulness.. not limit usefulness.. just because you can buy bread with fiat doesnt mean bitcoin shouldnt bother trying to get walmart/7eleven to accept bitcoin aswell..(although right now timing aint right for that)

[CIYAM]

@CIYAM what is your opinion of the merits of side chains to solve the 10 minutes problem, and are side chains fundamentally different from the CIYAM project?

I think side chains could be very useful - I think we need to wait a while until we have something to play with before making judgements about that.

In regards to the CIYAM project I'm going to offer no comment at this stage other than to say it won't be a "coin".

[tvbcof]

Thanks CIYAM, Lauda, and various others for coming around and seeing what is actually going on here and speaking up about it.  There are a few people who I'd given up hope for and figured where likely shilling (formally) but who have surprised me.  I tend to err on the 'safe' side and hopefully I've been underestimating the community.  Ultimately it is the community will have the greatest impact on how distributed crypto-currencies evolve and how revolutionary they will be for humanity.

[arcticlava]

@CIYAM what is your opinion of the merits of side chains to solve the 10 minutes problem, and are side chains fundamentally different from the CIYAM project?

I think side chains could be very useful - I think we need to wait a while until we have something to play with before making judgements about that.

In regards to the CIYAM project I'm going to offer no comment at this stage other than to say it won't be a "coin".

Thanks for your reply CIYAM. In my view one of the most promising aspects to blockchain technology, and one that is not susceptible to the "10 minutes" problem, is utility in the realm of digital certificates, such as authentication of identity and/or permissions, for data access, using built-in asymmetric key pairs. This is of very high utility in communication, commerce, and web data management across the board, in numerous industries outside of finance, above and beyond the buying of coffee and sending international remittances.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

You are arguing with a paid troll (NotLambChop)

Don't expect to come out on the winning side of the argument (or have the last word for that matter)

Yup - I am not trying to "win an argument" or help the paid trolls - if this topic devolves much further I'll just lock it.

I know exactly how you feel. Next time I'll have the foresight to moderate important threads so trolls don't foul them up with nonsense.

[687_2]

So even with coffee out of the equation, the block size problem remains on the table.

So let's discuss the block size problem.

Currently the Bitcoin network can only support around 7 TPS (transactions per second) but you need to realise for a start that it is not "actually 7 txs per second" as a new block only gets created on average every 10 minutes (so a merchant can't expect a payment confirmation in seconds).

So no matter how much bigger you make the blocks you don't solve the 10 minutes problem (so the X txs per second are actually not *real* txs per second and never will be).

The very design of Bitcoin stops it from being like VISA and this is the point that I have been trying to make.

Thanks for creating this thread and for your valuable technical input. I always enjoy reading what's written by the real professionals in the XBT space, although it takes more and more effort to wade through the garbage that is written each day.

People will not use Bitcoin as a currency as long as inflationary currencies exist as an alternative. Assets of an inflationary nature (fiat currency) will always be disposed of first, deflationary assets (bitcoin) second. This supports your statement that Bitcoin is very useful in a use-case such as remittance.

Bitcoin is valuable in three key ways:
1.  It's scarce
2.  The monetary policy is perfectly transparent and predictable
3.  It is censorship-resistant.

Therefore it's primary use (90%) is wealth preservation. It is not and will not be used as a currency. There are major innovations occurring in cryptofinance that resolve the "payments" use-case that many people here and at /r/bitcoin seem so preoccupied with. Attempting to modify XBT to compete with these other technologies is counterproductive at best- ideally Bitcoin development is focused on supporting items 1-3 as mentioned above, and ignoring the noise (psyops?) that is designed to delay/disorient/divide Bitcoin developers.

[jonald_fyookball]

So even with coffee out of the equation, the block size problem remains on the table.

So let's discuss the block size problem.

Currently the Bitcoin network can only support around 7 TPS (transactions per second) but you need to realise for a start that it is not "actually 7 txs per second" as a new block only gets created on average every 10 minutes (so a merchant can't expect a payment confirmation in seconds).

So no matter how much bigger you make the blocks you don't solve the 10 minutes problem (so the X txs per second are actually not *real* txs per second and never will be).

The very design of Bitcoin stops it from being like VISA and this is the point that I have been trying to make.

Thanks for creating this thread and for your valuable technical input. I always enjoy reading what's written by the real professionals in the XBT space, although it takes more and more effort to wade through the garbage that is written each day.

People will not use Bitcoin as a currency as long as inflationary currencies exist as an alternative. Assets of an inflationary nature (fiat currency) will always be disposed of first, deflationary assets (bitcoin) second. This supports your statement that Bitcoin is very useful in a use-case such as remittance.

Bitcoin is valuable in three key ways:
1.  It's scarce
2.  The monetary policy is perfectly transparent and predictable
3.  It is censorship-resistant.

Therefore it's primary use (90%) is wealth preservation. It is not and will not be used as a currency. There are major innovations occurring in cryptofinance that resolve the "payments" use-case that many people here and at /r/bitcoin seem so preoccupied with. Attempting to modify XBT to compete with these other technologies is counterproductive at best- ideally Bitcoin development is focused on supporting items 1-3 as mentioned above, and ignoring the noise (psyops?) that is designed to delay/disorient/divide Bitcoin developers.

You're forgetting that Bitcoin can be transferred instantly anywhere in the world, making it perfect as a currency AND as a store of wealth.
It is already being used as a currency and will continue to grow.
 

[687_2]

You're forgetting that Bitcoin can be transferred instantly anywhere in the world

Transaction and settlement are two different things. Bitcoin transactions occur "instantly" (or as fast as the network can propagate the signal), but "settlement" takes at least 10 minutes. Perhaps more importantly XBT settlement is probabilistic rather than deterministic, so it is largely incompatible with modern legal systems.

It is already being used as a currency and will continue to grow.

Let's see some examples of present-day use and evidence to support your hypothesis.

[jonald_fyookball]

You're forgetting that Bitcoin can be transferred instantly anywhere in the world

Transaction and settlement are two different things. Bitcoin transactions occur "instantly" (or as fast as the network can propagate the signal), but "settlement" takes at least 10 minutes.

Yep, we all know this... (and "settlement" on credit card systems takes far longer.) 
This has been said 1000 times on this forum already. yaawwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn..........................

[keepdoing]

@CIYAM what is your opinion of the merits of side chains to solve the 10 minutes problem, and are side chains fundamentally different from the CIYAM project?

I think side chains could be very useful - I think we need to wait a while until we have something to play with before making judgements about that.

In regards to the CIYAM project I'm going to offer no comment at this stage other than to say it won't be a "coin".

Dude,
you live on Bitcointalk..... yapping.
Whose doing the coding?

[Phil Astley]

To expand on what I am saying I think that you need to consider this:

Companies like Western Union would go out of business if people just used Bitcoin for remittance (real *disruption* IMO).

I think more than likely they will grab the blockchain technology, ram their name on it and then tout it as their new innovation (that they of course invented either to direct lies or by ommision) to grandparents who do not know any better while charging the same or more for the privilege or using a company with history and 'trust'

However it happens you have to remember that BTC now has first mover legacy, same as eBay and Amazon did with the internet; they got so big and so powerful that even now, 20 years later EVERYONE associates those two companies with the be all and end all of all internet commerce and that is what BTC will become, inevitably there will be other coins out there that will for certain niches but as most Americans associate .com with their country code they will not even have a clue that it was never intended for commerce but military communications and that .us is actually officially theirs.

Btc has gotten to 54% now?

That is a huge lead and something very special is going to have to happen to break the billions that vc's and individuals, businesses and speculators have put into it.

I did have an point to this post but my train of thought went off a tangent and plummeted down a cliff :p

[CIYAM]

Whose doing the coding?

https://github.com/ciyam/ciyam/commits/master

FYI - last commit was on new year's day (and I tend to push commits at least once or twice per week).

How about you actually try making some valid points rather than trying (and failing miserably with) personal insults?

[countryfree]

So even with coffee out of the equation, the block size problem remains on the table.

So let's discuss the block size problem.

Currently the Bitcoin network can only support around 7 TPS (transactions per second) but you need to realise for a start that it is not "actually 7 txs per second" as a new block only gets created on average every 10 minutes (so a merchant can't expect a payment confirmation in seconds).

So no matter how much bigger you make the blocks you don't solve the 10 minutes problem (so the X txs per second are actually not *real* txs per second and never will be).

The very design of Bitcoin stops it from being like VISA and this is the point that I have been trying to make.

I don't see a problem with the 10 minutes delay. My email software checks for new mail every 10 minutes, and that's fine. I guess it isn't an issue with remittance either. The problem really is in the number of transactions.

There are over 100,000 transactions every day now, I wish, and I guess we all need BTC to be able to handle 100,000 transactions per hour.

[CIYAM]

I don't see a problem with the 10 minutes delay. My email software checks for new mail every 10 minutes, and that's fine. I guess it isn't an issue with remittance either. The problem really is in the number of transactions.

The delay is not an issue for remittance but it is an issue for "buying coffee".

If you can't confirm a tx then you are giving someone a coffee in the hope that they haven't purposely paid zero (or a very low) tx fee that might result in the tx being dropped from the mempool before it ever got confirmed (allowing the person to then repeat this).

The only way you can really prevent this problem is going to be allowing child tx's to pay for parent ones (which itself could cause problems).

At this stage the Bitcoin network doesn't even recognise this (although some nodes do) so you enter into a very murky area when you get involved with 0 confirmations.